The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity 281
at the mercy of nature. The two scripts are generally deployed in postcolonial
contexts to deny indigenous peoples rights to their ancestral lands or to justify
forced displacements or encroachments upon indigenous territories and lands in
the name of economic development.
Of particular interest here is the way some BCPs display alternative
narratives and representations to refute any of those scripts. Kenya offers two
such cases with the Ogiek BCP and the Lamu County BCP. The Ogiek people and the indigenous communities of Lamu County are facing different
challenges. For decades, the Ogiek people have been seeking redress for the
violent evictions from their ancestral homeland in the Mau Forest Complex.
The BCP, whose second version was released in 2015, was part of a broader
political campaign and a legal and judicial strategy that saw a landmark victory in the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 2017. For their
part, the five communities of the Lamu County – the Bajun, the Swahili, the
Sanye, the Aweer (more commonly known as the Boni), and the Orma – are
grappling with several development projects planned in the region (notably
the Kenya Government’s “LAPSSET project”, including, among other things,
a railway line, a 32-berth port, a motorway, a regional international airport).
All these components of the project are a significant matter of concern to the
indigenous communities living in the area. Their grievances range from crime
and alcoholism, harm to the environment, dilution of the indigenous culture,
to harm to national monuments, conflicts over scarce natural resources, and
the marginalisation of indigenous communities; this is a context of still unaddressed historical injustice and endemic land insecurity.
These protocols, nevertheless, allow communities to cast themselves as
champions of an alternative model of economic development, this time in
tune with “nature”, thereby dispelling competing images of b ackward-looking
communities, allegedly hung on to retrogressive ideas about life. The Lamu
County BCP expresses, in “sustainable development” terms, that the communities’ vision is “[t]o build a culturally, socio-economically, and politically
empowered community, striving to secure [their] natural resources and sustain a green environment” (p. 59). The protocol also insists on the “promotion
of sustainable development” through “nature-based livelihoods”, “small-scale
industry”, and “market for nature-based products” (p. 63). It also opposes
the construction of the coal plant since “there are other means of generating
electricity, some of which are clean and from renewable sources […]” (p. 47).
Similar rhetoric is deployed throughout the Ogiek BCP, where it refers to the
allegedly “‘more sustainable’ economic livelihoods systems such as arable cultivation and livestock keeping” that the Ogiek have been forced to adopt, set
against “sustainable development activities including beekeeping, commercial
tree farming, grazing and tourism” (p. 22). The document links the ABS
regime to the natural resources found on the Ogiek’s ancestral lands, supporting strategies to target livelihood improvement, poverty alleviation, and
sustainable development (p. 22). In the Ogiek case, a further challenge relates
26
at the mercy of nature. The two scripts are generally deployed in postcolonial
contexts to deny indigenous peoples rights to their ancestral lands or to justify
forced displacements or encroachments upon indigenous territories and lands in
the name of economic development.
Of particular interest here is the way some BCPs display alternative
narratives and representations to refute any of those scripts. Kenya offers two
such cases with the Ogiek BCP and the Lamu County BCP. The Ogiek people and the indigenous communities of Lamu County are facing different
challenges. For decades, the Ogiek people have been seeking redress for the
violent evictions from their ancestral homeland in the Mau Forest Complex.
The BCP, whose second version was released in 2015, was part of a broader
political campaign and a legal and judicial strategy that saw a landmark victory in the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 2017. For their
part, the five communities of the Lamu County – the Bajun, the Swahili, the
Sanye, the Aweer (more commonly known as the Boni), and the Orma – are
grappling with several development projects planned in the region (notably
the Kenya Government’s “LAPSSET project”, including, among other things,
a railway line, a 32-berth port, a motorway, a regional international airport).
All these components of the project are a significant matter of concern to the
indigenous communities living in the area. Their grievances range from crime
and alcoholism, harm to the environment, dilution of the indigenous culture,
to harm to national monuments, conflicts over scarce natural resources, and
the marginalisation of indigenous communities; this is a context of still unaddressed historical injustice and endemic land insecurity.
These protocols, nevertheless, allow communities to cast themselves as
champions of an alternative model of economic development, this time in
tune with “nature”, thereby dispelling competing images of b ackward-looking
communities, allegedly hung on to retrogressive ideas about life. The Lamu
County BCP expresses, in “sustainable development” terms, that the communities’ vision is “[t]o build a culturally, socio-economically, and politically
empowered community, striving to secure [their] natural resources and sustain a green environment” (p. 59). The protocol also insists on the “promotion
of sustainable development” through “nature-based livelihoods”, “small-scale
industry”, and “market for nature-based products” (p. 63). It also opposes
the construction of the coal plant since “there are other means of generating
electricity, some of which are clean and from renewable sources […]” (p. 47).
Similar rhetoric is deployed throughout the Ogiek BCP, where it refers to the
allegedly “‘more sustainable’ economic livelihoods systems such as arable cultivation and livestock keeping” that the Ogiek have been forced to adopt, set
against “sustainable development activities including beekeeping, commercial
tree farming, grazing and tourism” (p. 22). The document links the ABS
regime to the natural resources found on the Ogiek’s ancestral lands, supporting strategies to target livelihood improvement, poverty alleviation, and
sustainable development (p. 22). In the Ogiek case, a further challenge relates
26